New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

mrshowrules:New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.

St_Francis_P:mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.

I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.

jake_lex:St_Francis_P: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.

I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.

That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?

abb3w:The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".

I think every reason except for "civil unions are sufficient" and maybe "undermines traditional family structure" boil down to "because." And the second one is only if you really think that kids raised by any set of guardians other than a mother and a father will inevitably end up worse than kids raised by a mother and a father.

I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong. There are a lot of people who think they can immunize themselves from criticism if they just hide behind the bible. When your friend asks you why you oppose his marriage, it's so much easier to say "it's not me, blame god" than it is to come right out and say "I think you're gross."

Dr Dreidel:That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?

My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d. The second one is between you and your creator and involves no one else, whereas the first defines how you treat other people and their rights. It makes it rather clear you have no right to abridge the laws of man just because of your private belief in the law of g-d.

Blues_X:"These two or three pages in the Bible say it's wrong. Of course, the Bible says a lot of other things are wrong but I just ignore those parts."

Well, how else was Constantine going to break worship involving gay sex to promote fertality, military success, and promoting camaraderie between legionnaires following other religions if he didn't push these verses when he converted the Empire to Christianity?

Nuuu:I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong. There are a lot of people who think they can immunize themselves from criticism if they just hide behind the bible. When your friend asks you why you oppose his marriage, it's so much easier to say "it's not me, blame god" than it is to come right out and say "I think you're gross."

This is also why I am against fat marriage.

Of course I don't think we shoudl legislate based on what I think is gross...

404 page not found:Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?"

/married into it

Just out of curiosity, does your priest think other religions should not get married? Does he think other religions or people with no religion don't exist? I'm completely baffled by people using their own religion as a reason when someone else, who may not practice that religion should somehow have to adhere to their rules.

Diogenes:urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.

To be fair, we COULD modify all the laws about civil unions to mirror the rights granted in marriage, but I doubt that would ever happen. Then it would just be about the religious aspect of the union, which frankly I don't care about and belongs to each person privately. That's one of my big issues, that gay people in civil unions are cut off from lots of legal redress rights just because of who they marry. It's infuriating and unjust.

urbangirl:This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

rtaylor92:404 page not found: Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?"

/married into it

Just out of curiosity, does your priest think other religions should not get married? Does he think other religions or people with no religion don't exist? I'm completely baffled by people using their own religion as a reason when someone else, who may not practice that religion should somehow have to adhere to their rules.

I have no idea what that moran thinks about any of that. But I can safely assume he's like Bill Kristol; whatever it is he thinks, the opposite is most likely true.